Swords won't answer Finglas. He has gone very quiet. I asked him the same question and he won't answer. It would just highlight that everything he has written on this subject over the last number of months is just pure tosh or that he finds it acceptable for players to be racially abused while playing.
Just to throw my hat in the ring following yesterdays comments. I think the point that we are all trying to make its not so much if what Terry is alleged to said is right or wrong. If he said what he's being accused and was directed at Anton its clearly wrong no one disputes that. The point is if this court case was necessarily the best way of bringing this matter to its conclusion. The clubs could have worked together for a public apology and I think this would have gone away pretty quickly. Instead this is a case that the Prime Minister has been asked to comment on and caused chaos for the England football team, based on some slightly unclear YouTube footage. The case is being covered has been described as "the world swearing championships" and articles such as this one in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/09/john-terry-football-racism-word to me high lite a certain absurdity in this whole case. (Although the most absurd thing maybe that John Terry is actually able to write.) As for Swords point that Anton is not entirely blameless, I would not go as far as Swords but I do understand the point he is making. They were both on the wind up, Terry went too far. Your right Anton has done nothing that is illegal or could have a court case brought against him, but blameless? In my mind he can't be seen as without being some blame, however I do agree with Antons point in court that when you bring race into it , it goes to a new level. But that doesn't make him entirely blameless in the whole thing. I think we should all be a bit more respectful of the variety of opinions on the way this incident should be brought to conclusion and in same ways wait for the post fall out case before jumping to any conclusions. I fear that for QPR the end of this will not be at the end of this week, it could well start to get deeper and more complex. We are aiming to be a "global brand" now. If Terry is found innocent based on evidence that we currently have not considered or know nothing about , this could all take a turn for the worse as far as QPR are concerned.
Thank you Finglas, I've been to Dublin many times, although not in the last 20 years and always enjoyed the company. Swords is swimming against the tide (for the umpteenth time)!...
How are "QPR suffering the spotlight" Swords? The opposite is the truth. When this is over, the world will thank our club and Anton ferdinand for standing up and saying racial abuse is not acceptable and John Terry will be exposed for the racial bigot that he is.
1) I have been on the board for over a year and on the old 606 just dont always post as a bit busy. 2) So Terry used a racist comment during a televised game, knowing there are cameras everywhere but still decides to say a racist comment.... a strange decision. 3) Really an open and shut case.... well it maybe soon but he still said a racist comment and then has come up with so many stories and as such means Terry lied. This a point raised by the police why Terry was under caution and being interviewed. 4) No we were there because the team didnt play away from home and were beaten before this happened previously by heavy margins so not really a valid reason. 5) Which he did when giving his statement and evidence in court.... again it is not his complaint therefore the police were investigating and found there was a case as Terry broke the law by making a racist comment with the intention to cause distress or hurt to the other party otherwise why say it. 6) Again he didnt make the complaint and when he found out that a racist comment was made felt aggrieved and if he had not felt this way he was in agreement with racism and what it stands for. Anton was in a no win situation let it go and agree with racism or feel aggrieved and be a target for narrow minded individuals who blame the victim. 7) I feel for you as the lack of understanding on the subject of racism and the lack of empathy towards the victim of the crime, which you believe is a small one yet was the attitude many had years ago which thankfully has no place in today's society. This case is not just about Terry but the use of racist comments in football, football grounds and if the matter was not investigated fully what would this say to the general public, school kids or other counties about the country.
I'm disappointed that you would think I wouldn't answer something NUTS. Unfortunately I've work to do and can't be on here 24/7 (as is the case, I'm sure, of everyone on this Board including your good self). That's not like you mate. In answer to the question, of course it wasn't right to call him that! Like I said before, I'm no admirer of or apologist for John friggin Terry. The guy's an idiot. It was no more right to call him that than it was for Ferdinand to insult him. The question is, as Willy pointed out earlier, where do you draw the line? For example, if Ferdinand had of called Terry's mother a "fat slag" or his child a "******" or his family "pikeys". All as contemptible, in my opinion, as what Terry said although admittedly not in the eyes of the law. Also, as i said in a previous post, if Ferdinand called Terry a white cu*t nothing would have been said about it. Terry has been offered up as a sacrificial lamb and the left-wing loonies are coming in their pants with the excitement of it all. Depressing indeed. (P.S. Good points there Renault, hard to argue with most of that. Besides, I'm too sick and tired of this subject to argue anymore!)
Good response, Swords (although I would argue that if the reverse had happened and Anton had called Terry a 'white c**t', it would have also been treated as seriously by the CPS had it been reported. The law says it must be). Regarding where the line is drawn, we all draw lines regarding our personal conduct and behaviour. The question here is where the law draws the line, and it's clear that on that scale, Anton maybe came close, but didn't cross the line, whilst Terry certainly did.
I appreciate that mate. Its good you and I can respectfully disagree on this (although you are totally correct RE the law of the land). I would just like to say something regards racism, as I want to make my position clear. Racism is an attitude that unfortunately still exists among man-kind. It is the most primitive form of prejudice there is. Tribalism and chauvinism also show the human species in its crude and barbaric form. Whilst being archaic, racism is also pathetic when we realize every single one of us originated in Africa. The reason we differ in pigmentation is due only to environmental factors in which we evolved to best suit the climate and surroundings of the part of earthly rock we happened to find ourselves habitating. Racism is the lowest of the low and its generally the pond-life of society that resort to its usage because they are knuckle-dragging ignoramuses who can't string a coherent sentence together and would be better off caged up in a zoo. I just think this case has become a bit of a pantomime and the sooner its over the better for everybody.
Does that mean that we get to cage Terry and stick him in a zoo if he's found guilty? Please say it does!!!
If you had said this on day one, then most of us would have agreed 100% with you. I have to give you great credit SWORDS, there is nobody on this site who digs a bigger hole for himself and can then extract himself with humility when required.
Swords - that is a very refreshing post. It is well put from an unconventional viewpoint but somehow mirrors my own stance - that is the overly defensive position that people take with regard to imaginary borders (and the excessive patriotism that ensues). I have seen you post about pro-european and pro-global views and I'm in full agreement. What I have deduced is that you are very moral about actual prejudice but are not affected by racial abuse (insofaras you see it as name calling). That in itself is not wrong - it just shows that you're hick skinned (thankfully to the point where you do keep restating your opinion until gems like the above post surface). What I will say, is the following (which may well be me repeating myself):- 1) There's no doubt that abuse (racial or otherwise) occurs all too regularly on the pitch - wrongfully so in my opinion but I can see the point that it is meant to stop at the ege of the field and handshakes occur (**** - I'm sounding like Blatter now). 2) There is an inequality in terms of what abuse is deemed allowable and what isn't. One thing is for certain - JT committed adultery in a most idiotic way (or would have the right to sue for slander had that been caught on camera and it wasn't true). AF should never have someone believe that the best way to insult him is the colour of his skin (nor should anyone of any race/religion). I do think that it is easy to use the legal definition to decide what is allowable abuse and what isn't whereas the reality is wholly different and definitely uncertain in moral terms if not in the eyes of the law (I could expand so much on that one topic). 3) John Terry's crime was as much getting caught - the bigger part to this is the influence that comments like this can have in the public domain (especially children who idolise their favourite player). As such, JT's position is indefensible. This doesn't make what he said any less wrong but I'm just saying that it will happen. 4) Anton Ferdinand did nothing wrong. He did nothing to diffuse the situation either but he might be harbouring resentment from years of this happening. This was whipped up into a frenzy pretty quickly and, at that point, AF's stuck in a now win position (as well stated by Renault). 5) A very public apology along with community service with children of diverse ethnicity would have gone immeasurably towards sorting this out (along with being stripped of the England captaincy) rather than this stupid ongoing petty defense (how can he even defend himself - he's like a trapped dog trying to snarl his way out). I think I now, at least in part, understand your view but hope that you can see that of the rest of us that Anton has done nothing wrong (and the fact that he's had death threats and bullets posted to him from racist fanatics should qualify him as the victim if nothing else does). Also, you are always the first to rally behind the team and want the best from a QPR perspective (at all costs) and, given the situation this whole mess is currently in, surely we should rally behind him and support him fully for the new season irrespective of how we got here.
....and what NUTS said. If this has been stated as your initial stance then you may have not had so much bile spat at you (although I get the feeling that you like keeping your trump cards back).
Swords are you for real...you think Anton wanted it to be dragged out!! If I remember correctly, wasn't it JT's side of things that requested the trial be put back? As if Anton wanted it all to blow out of proportion
This thread shows Swords in all his glory. He provokes argument with contentious points and leaves things hanging, unanswered until page 16 where he posts something that he knows will bring everyone on board again. He is a wum and the best thing we can all do is not to feed the troll!
He hasn't exactly changed his stance. In fact, I'd say he's been very consistent. Half the point of debating is to state your point and the other half is to try to persuade others to your way of thinking. It also brings out better elaboration of views IMO.
